Open AccessArticle

Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function

Muhammad Imran Faisal

¹,

Isra Al-Shbeil

^2,*

Muhammad Abbas

³,

Muhammad Arif

^3,*

and

Reem K. Alhefthi

⁴

Department of Mathematics, Taibah University, Universities Road, P.O. Box 344, Medina 42353, Saudi Arabia

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan

Department of Mathematics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Mardan 23200, Pakistan

⁴

Department of Mathematics, College of Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Symmetry 2023, 15(7), 1292; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071292

Submission received: 5 May 2023 / Revised: 31 May 2023 / Accepted: 3 June 2023 / Published: 21 June 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Symmetry in Functional Equations and Analytic Inequalities III)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

In numerous geometric and physical applications of complex analysis, estimating the sharp bounds of coefficient-related problems of univalent functions is very important due to the fact that these coefficients describe the core inherent properties of conformal maps. The primary goal of this paper was to calculate the sharp estimates of the initial coefficients and some of their combinations (the Hankel determinants, Zalcman’s functional, etc.) for the class of symmetric starlike functions linked with the sigmoid function. Moreover, we also determined the bounds of second-order Hankel determinants containing coefficients of logarithmic and inverse functions of the same class.

Keywords:

starlike functions; sigmoid function; logarithmic and inverse functions; Krushkal and Zalcman functionals; Hankel determinant problems

MSC:

30C45; 30C50

1. Introduction and Definitions

In order to study the basic terminology that is used in our primary outcomes, here, we have to provide some elementary ideas. Let us start with the set that indicates that the region of open unit disc

U_{d} = \{z \in C : |z| < 1\}

as a domain and that the notation

A

stands for the family of analytic (or holomorphic) functions normalized by

g (0) = g^{'} (0) - 1 = 0

. This shows that, if

g \in A

, then it has the Taylor’s series expansion:

g (z) = z + \sum_{n = 1}^{+ \infty} d_{n} z^{n}, (z \in U_{d}) .

(1)

In addition, remember that, by notation

S

, we denote the family of univalent functions with series expansion (1). This family was first taken into account by Köebe in 1907. In 2012, Aleman and Constantin [1] established an astonishing connection between fluid dynamics and univalent function theory. They actually provided a simple method that shows how to use a univalent harmonic map for finding explicit solutions to incompressible two-dimensional Euler equations. It has several implications in a variety of applied scientific disciplines, including modern mathematical physics, fluid dynamics, nonlinear integrable system theory, and the theory of partial differential equations.

In 1916, Bieberbach [2] worked on the coefficients of family

S

and stated the most well-known coefficient conjecture of function theory, known as the “Bieberbach conjecture”. According to this conjecture, if

g \in S

, then

|d_{n}| \leq n

for all

n \geq 2

. He also proved this problem for

n = 2

. It is evident that several renowned researchers have adopted a variety of approaches to address this problem, and a few of them [3,4,5,6] have succeeded in proving it for

n = 3, \dots, 6

. Numerous scholars attempted to prove this hypothesis for

n \geq 7

for a very long time, but no one was successful. Finally, in 1985, de-Branges [7] proved this conjecture for all

n \geq 2

by using hypergeometric functions. Lawrence Zalcman proposed the inequality

|a_{n}^{2} - a_{2 n - 1}| \leq {(n - 1)}^{2}

with

n \geq 2

for

g \in S

in 1960 as a way of establishing the Bieberbach conjecture. Due to this, a number of articles [8,9,10] have been published on the Zalcman hypothesis and its generalised form

|λ a_{n}^{2} - a_{2 n - 1}| \leq λ n^{2} - 2 n + 1

(λ \geq 0)

for different subclasses of the set

S

, however this conjecture has remained unsolved for a long time. Last but not least, Krushkal established this hypothesis in [11] for

n \leq 6

and subsequently resolved it in an unpublished article [12] for

n \geq 2

by using the holomorphic homotopy of univalent functions. A broader Zalcman hypothesis for

g \in S

was proposed by Ma [13] later, in 1999, and is given by

|a_{n} a_{m} - a_{n + m - 1}| \leq (n - 1) (m - 1) for n \geq 2, m \geq 2 .

He proved it for one of the

S

subfamilies, however the challenge is still open for

S

family.

The estimates of the nth coefficient bounds for numerous subfamilies of the univalent function class, including starlike

S^{*}

, convex C, and many more, were determined between 1916 and 1985 in an effort to solve the aforementioned problem. In fact, because of that problem, this field of study has become heavily researched, which explains why this topic has gained so much popularity so rapidly. The notation

S^{*}

contains the functions that map the unit disk

U_{d}

onto a region that is star-shaped with respect to the origin. This idea was generalized by Sakaguchi [14] in 1959 by introducing the class

S_{s}^{*}

of starlike functions with respect to symmetric points. In 1977, Das and Singh [15] developed the family

C_{s}

of symmetric convex functions using this idea. In each of the above cited articles, the authors provided the analytical formulations of these classes as follows:

\begin{matrix} S_{s}^{*} & = & \{g \in S : Re \frac{2 z g^{'} (z)}{g (z) - g (- z)} > 0, (z \in U_{d})\}, \\ C_{s} & = & \{g \in S : Re \frac{2 {(z g^{'} (z))}^{'}}{{(g (z) - g (- z))}^{'}} > 0, (z \in U_{d})\} . \end{matrix}

Furthermore, the authors asserted [14] that the class

S_{s}^{*}

is a subclass of the set K of close-to-convex functions and that, with reference to the origin, it encompasses the families of convex and odd starlike functions. Following that, other mathematicians developed a large number of new symmetrical point-relative univalent function subfamilies. Utilizing this idea, Goel and Kumar [16] introduced a subfamily of starlike functions defined by

S_{S G}^{*} = \{g \in S : \frac{z g^{'} (z)}{g (z)} ≺ \frac{2}{1 + e^{- z}}, (z \in U_{d})\} .

Some intriguing aspects of the function

f \in S_{S G}^{*}

were investigated in the article [17]. Motivated by the last definition, we now introduce a family

S S_{S G}^{*}

of symmetric starlike functions linked to the sigmoid function, which is given by

S S_{S G}^{*} = \{g \in S : \frac{2 z g^{'} (z)}{g (z) - g (- z)} ≺ \frac{2}{1 + e^{- z}}, (z \in U_{d})\} .

The determinant

H_{λ, k} (g)

with

λ, k \in N = {1, 2, \dots},

given below is known as the Hankel determinant, and was investigated by Pommerenke [18,19] for the function

g \in S

H_{λ, k} (g) = |\begin{matrix} d_{k} & d_{k + 1} & \dots & d_{k + λ - 1} \\ d_{k + 1} & d_{k + 2} & \dots & d_{k + λ} \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & \dots & ⋮ \\ d_{k + λ - 1} & d_{k + λ} & \dots & d_{k + 2 λ - 2} \end{matrix}| .

This determinant is very important in several studies, including those on power series with integral coefficients by Polya [20] (p. 323) and Cantor [21], as well as singularities by Hadamard [20] (p. 329) and Edrei [22].

There are not many publications in the literature that examine the bounds of the Hankel determinant for the function g that belongs to the

S

family. The best estimate for

g \in S

was determined by Hayman in [23] and is

|H_{2, n} (g)| \leq |η|

, where

η

is a constant. Additionally, for

g \in S

, it was shown in [24] that the second-order Hankel determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g)| \leq η

for

0 \leq η \leq 11 / 3

. After these findings, it was and is a difficult task for scholars to determine the exact bounds of the Hankel determinants for a particular class of functions. The first paper [25] that used the ideas of the Caratheodory functions to accurately determine the sharp estimates of

|H_{2, 2} (g)|

for the two fundamental subclasses of the set

S

of univalent functions appeared in 2007. The two determinants

H_{2, 1} (g)

and

H_{2, 2} (g)

have been thoroughly investigated in the literature [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] for various subfamilies of univalent functions; however, only a small number of works have been published [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] in which the authors established the determinant’s sharp bounds. The objective of this particular article was to compute the sharp estimates of initial coefficients, Fekete-Szegö, Krushkal, and Zalcman inequalities, as well as the second-order Hankel determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g)|

for the family

S S_{S G}^{*}

of analytic functions by using a technique of subordination, which proves the result in an easier way compared to the other methodology. Furthermore, we established the sharp bounds for second-order Hankel determinants with coefficients of logarithmic and inverse functions of the same class.

2. A Set of Lemmas

Let

B_{0}

be the family of Schwarz functions. Then, the function

w \in B_{0}

may be expressed as a power series

w (z) = \sum_{n = 1}^{+ \infty} ξ_{n} z^{n} .

(2)

The subsequent Schwarz function lemmas are required for proving our primary findings.

Lemma 1

([44]). Let the Schwarz function w have the form (2). Then, for any real numbers α and β such that

(α, β) = \{|α| \leq \frac{1}{2}, - 1 \leq β \leq 1\} \cup \{\frac{1}{2} \leq |α| \leq 2, \frac{4}{27} {(1 + |α|)}^{3} - (1 + |α|) \leq β \leq 1\},

the following sharp estimate holds:

|ξ_{3} + α ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + β ξ_{1}^{3}| \leq 1 .

Lemma 2

([45]). If

w \in B_{0}

is in the form of (2), then

\begin{matrix} |ξ_{2}| & \leq & 1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(3)

\begin{matrix} |ξ_{n}| & \leq & 1, n \geq 1 . \end{matrix}

(4)

Furthermore, the inequality of (3) can be improved in the manner of

|ξ_{2} + η ξ_{1}^{2}| \leq max \{1, |η|\}, f o r η \in C .

(5)

Lemma 3

([46]). Let

w \in B_{0}

be the series expansion (2). Then,

\begin{matrix} |ξ_{3}| & \leq & 1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - \frac{{|ξ_{2}|}^{2}}{1 + |ξ_{1}|}, \end{matrix}

(6)

\begin{matrix} |ξ_{4}| & \leq & 1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(7)

Lemma 4

([47]). Let

w \in B_{0}

be the series expansion (2). Then,

|ξ_{1} ξ_{3} - ξ_{2}^{2}| \leq 1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} .

3. Coefficient Bounds

We start with the coefficient bounds.

Theorem 1.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the series representation (1), then

\begin{matrix} |d_{2}| & \leq & \frac{1}{4}, \\ |d_{3}| & \leq & \frac{1}{4}, \\ |d_{4}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8}, \\ |d_{5}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8} . \end{matrix}

All these bounds are sharp.

Proof.

Assume that

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

. From the definition, it follows that there exists a Schwarz function w such that

\frac{2 z g^{'} (z)}{g (z) - g (- z)} = \frac{2}{1 + e^{- w (z)}} .

(8)

From Equation (2), we have

w (z) = ξ_{1} z + ξ_{2} z^{2} + ξ_{3} z^{3} + ξ_{4} z^{4} + \dots .

(9)

Using (1), we achieve

\frac{2 z g^{'} (z)}{g (z) - g (- z)} = 1 + 2 d_{2} z + 2 d_{3} z^{2} + (- 2 d_{2} d_{3} + 4 d_{4}) z^{3} + (- 2 d_{3}^{2} + 4 d_{5}) z^{4} + \dots .

(10)

Using a quick computation and the series expansion of (9), we arrive at

\frac{2}{1 + e^{- w (z)}} = 1 + \frac{1}{2} ξ_{1} z + \frac{1}{2} ξ_{2} z^{2} + (- \frac{1}{24} ξ_{1}^{3} + \frac{1}{2} ξ_{3}) z^{3} + (- \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{2} ξ_{4}) z^{4} + \dots .

(11)

Now, by comparing (10) and (11), we obtain

\begin{matrix} d_{2} & = & \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}, \end{matrix}

(12)

\begin{matrix} d_{3} & = & \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2}, \end{matrix}

(13)

\begin{matrix} d_{4} & = & - \frac{1}{96} ξ_{1}^{3} + \frac{1}{8} ξ_{3} + \frac{1}{32} ξ_{1} ξ_{2}, \end{matrix}

(14)

\begin{matrix} d_{5} & = & \frac{1}{8} ξ_{4} + \frac{1}{32} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{32} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} . \end{matrix}

(15)

Implementing (4) in (12), we achieve

|d_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

Applying (4) in (13), we achieve

|d_{3}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

From (14), we deduce that

|d_{4}| = \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{3} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{12}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = \frac{1}{4} and β = - \frac{1}{12} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. Hence, we have

|d_{4}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

To prove the last inequality, we can write (15), as

\begin{matrix} |d_{5}| & = & \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2}| \\ \leq & \frac{1}{8} [|ξ_{4}| + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} |ξ_{2}|] . \end{matrix}

By using (3) and (7) plus the triangle inequality, we achieve

|d_{5}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

ξ_{1} = 1

, then

d_{2} = \frac{1}{4}

. If

ξ_{2} = 1

, then

d_{3} = \frac{1}{4}

. If

ξ_{3} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

for

k \neq 3

, then

d_{4} = \frac{1}{8}

. Similarly, if

ξ_{4} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

for

k \neq 4

, then

d_{5} = \frac{1}{8}

. This indicates that, for the functions provided by (8) with

w (z) = z,

w (z) = z^{2},

w (z) = z^{3}

and

w (z) = z^{4}

, respectively, the equality conditions in the theorem’s statement are true. □

Theorem 2.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

is of the form (1), then, for

η \in C

|d_{3} - η d_{2}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{4}, |\frac{η}{16}|\} .

The Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp.

Proof.

Using (12) and (13), we have

\begin{matrix} |d_{3} - η d_{2}^{2}| & = & |\frac{1}{4} ξ_{2} - \frac{η}{16} ξ_{1}^{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{4} |ξ_{2} + (- \frac{η}{4}) ξ_{1}^{2}| . \end{matrix}

The application of (5) leads us to

|d_{3} - η d_{2}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{4}, |\frac{η}{16}|\} .

The obtained bound of the Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp by considering that

w (z) = z^{2}

. □

After putting

η = 1

in Theorem 2, we arrive at the following consequence.

Corollary 1.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

and has the form (1), then the following sharp bound holds:

|d_{3} - d_{2}^{2}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

Theorem 3.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has series representation (1), then the sharp bounds are

|d_{4} - d_{2} d_{3}| \leq \frac{1}{8} a n d |d_{5} - d_{3}^{2}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

Proof.

Utilizing (12), (13) and (14), we easily achieve

|d_{4} - d_{2} d_{3}| = \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{3} + (- \frac{1}{4}) ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{12}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = - \frac{1}{4} and β = - \frac{1}{12} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. Hence,

|d_{4} - d_{2} d_{3}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

To estimate

d_{5} - d_{3}^{2}

, we write this expression as follows:

\begin{matrix} |d_{5} - d_{3}^{2}| & = & \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{4} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{8} [|ξ_{4}| + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} |ξ_{2}|] . \end{matrix}

By using (3) and (7) plus the triangle inequality, we achieve

\begin{matrix} |d_{5} - d_{3}^{2}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8} [1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} (1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2})] . \\ \leq & \frac{1}{8} [1 - \frac{3}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - \frac{3}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4}], \end{matrix}

which is clearly less than or equal to

\frac{1}{8}

By considering

w (z) = z^{3}

and

w (z) = z^{4}

, the above-stated Zalcman functional cases are sharp. □

Theorem 4.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

and is given by (1), then

|d_{4} - d_{2}^{3}| \leq \frac{1}{8} a n d |d_{5} - d_{2}^{4}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

These outcomes are sharp.

Proof.

From (12) and (14), we easily obtain

|d_{4} - d_{2}^{3}| = \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{3} + (\frac{1}{4}) ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{5}{4}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = \frac{1}{4} and β = - \frac{5}{4} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. Hence,

|d_{4} - d_{2}^{3}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

To estimate

d_{5} - d_{2}^{4}

, we write this expression as follows:

\begin{matrix} |d_{5} - d_{2}^{4}| & = & \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} - \frac{1}{32} ξ_{1}^{4}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{8} [|ξ_{4}| + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} |ξ_{2}| + \frac{1}{32} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4}] . \end{matrix}

By using (3) and (7) plus the triangle inequality, we achieve

\begin{matrix} |d_{5} - d_{2}^{4}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8} [1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} (1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2}) + \frac{1}{32} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4}] . \\ \leq & \frac{1}{8} [1 - \frac{3}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} - \frac{3}{4} {|ξ_{2}|}^{2} - \frac{7}{32} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4}], \end{matrix}

which is clearly less than or equal to

\frac{1}{8}

Considering

w (z) = z^{3}

and

w (z) = z^{4}

, we can observe that the estimates of the Krushkal functionals are sharp. □

Now, let us discuss the Hankel determinants for the

S S_{S G}^{*}

class.

Theorem 5.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the series representation form (1), then

|H_{2, 2} (g)| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

The obtained inequality is sharp.

Proof.

The determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g)|

can be reconsidered as follows:

|H_{2, 2} (g)| = |d_{2} d_{4} - d_{3}^{2}| .

From (12)–(14), we obtain

\begin{matrix} |d_{2} d_{4} - d_{3}^{2}| & = & \frac{1}{8} |\frac{1}{2} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1} ξ_{3} - \frac{1}{16} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{48} ξ_{1}^{4}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{8} |\frac{1}{4} (ξ_{2}^{2} - ξ_{1} ξ_{3}) + \frac{1}{4} (ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{12} ξ_{1}^{4})| . \end{matrix}

Since

\begin{matrix} |ξ_{2}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{12} ξ_{1}^{4}| & \leq & {(1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2})}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} (1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2}) + \frac{1}{12} ξ_{1}^{4} . \\ = & 1 - \frac{7}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} + \frac{5}{6} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4} . \end{matrix}

and the function

1 - \frac{7}{4} t + \frac{5}{6} t^{2},

is decreasing in

[0, 1]

. Hence, we deduce that

|ξ_{2}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{12} ξ_{1}^{4}| \leq 1 .

Thus, by utilizing Lemma 4 along with the last inequality, we obtain the required stated bound.

Moreover, the determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g)| = \frac{1}{16}

ξ_{2} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

with

k \neq 2

; that is, considering

w (z) = z^{2}

in (8). □

4. Logarithmic Coefficient

The logarithmic coefficients

μ_{n}

are provided by the following formula:

G_{g} (z) : = log (\frac{g (z)}{z}) = 2 \sum_{n = 1}^{+ \infty} μ_{n} z^{n} for z \in U_{d} .

(16)

The theory of Schlicht functions is significantly impacted by these coefficients in various estimations. In 1985, de-Branges [7] determined that

\sum_{k = 1}^{n} k (n - k + 1) {|μ_{n}|}^{2} \leq \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{n - k + 1}{k}, for n \geq 1,

and, for the particular function

g (z) = z / (1 - e^{i θ} z)

with

θ \in R

, equality is attained. Evidently, this inequality gives rise to the broadest formulation of the well-known Bieberbach–Robertson–Milin conjectures involving Taylor coefficients of g that belong to

S .

For more information on how de-Brange’s claim is explained, see [48,49,50]. Brennan’s conjecture for conformal mappings was answered by Kayumov [51] in 2005 by taking the logarithmic coefficients into account. Several works [52,53,54] that have significantly advanced the study of logarithmic coefficients are included in this article.

It is easy to determine from the definition given above that the logarithmic coefficients for g belonging to

S

are given by

\begin{matrix} μ_{1} & = & \frac{1}{2} d_{2}, \end{matrix}

(17)

\begin{matrix} μ_{2} & = & \frac{1}{2} (d_{3} - \frac{1}{2} d_{2}^{2}), \end{matrix}

(18)

\begin{matrix} μ_{3} & = & \frac{1}{2} (d_{4} - d_{2} d_{3} + \frac{1}{3} d_{2}^{3}), \end{matrix}

(19)

\begin{matrix} μ_{4} & = & \frac{1}{2} (d_{5} - d_{2} d_{4} + d_{2}^{2} d_{3} - \frac{1}{2} d_{3}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} d_{2}^{4}) . \end{matrix}

(20)

The Hankel determinant

H_{q, n} (G_{g} / 2)

with logarithmic coefficients was initially developed by Kowalczyk and Lecko in [55,56] and is given by

H_{q, n} (G_{g} / 2) : = |\begin{matrix} μ_{n} & μ_{n + 1} & \dots & μ_{n + q - 1} \\ μ_{n + 1} & μ_{n + 2} & \dots & μ_{n + q} \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & \dots & ⋮ \\ μ_{n + q - 1} & μ_{n + q} & \dots & μ_{n + 2 q - 2} \end{matrix}| .

(21)

It has been observed that

\begin{matrix} H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2) & = & |\begin{matrix} μ_{1} & μ_{2} \\ μ_{2} & μ_{3} \end{matrix}| = μ_{1} μ_{3} - μ_{2}^{2}, \\ H_{2, 2} (G_{g} / 2) & = & |\begin{matrix} μ_{2} & μ_{3} \\ μ_{3} & μ_{4} \end{matrix}| = μ_{2} μ_{4} - μ_{3}^{2} . \end{matrix}

For further investigations of the Hankel determinant on logarithmic coefficients, see [57,58,59,60]. In this section, we compute the sharp estimates of logarithmic coefficients up to

μ_{3}

and Fekete–Szegö, Zalcman, and Krushkal inequalities along with the Hankel determinant

|H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)|

for the class

S S_{S G}^{*}

Theorem 6.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

is of the form (1), then

\begin{matrix} |μ_{1}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8}, \\ |μ_{2}| & \leq & \frac{1}{8}, \\ |μ_{3}| & \leq & \frac{1}{16} . \end{matrix}

These bounds are sharp.

Proof.

Applying (12)–(15) in (17)–(20), we obtain

\begin{matrix} μ_{1} & = & \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}, \end{matrix}

(22)

\begin{matrix} μ_{2} & = & \frac{1}{8} ξ_{2} - \frac{1}{64} ξ_{1}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(23)

\begin{matrix} μ_{3} & = & - \frac{1}{384} ξ_{1}^{3} + \frac{1}{16} ξ_{3} - \frac{1}{64} ξ_{1} ξ_{2}, \end{matrix}

(24)

\begin{matrix} μ_{4} & = & \frac{1}{16} ξ_{4} - \frac{3}{256} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{5}{6144} ξ_{1}^{4} - \frac{1}{64} ξ_{1} ξ_{3} . \end{matrix}

(25)

Using (4) in (22), we achieve

|μ_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

For the second inequality, we may write (23) by

|μ_{2}| = \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{2}) ξ_{1}^{2}| .

Applying (5), we achieve

|μ_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

For (24), we deduce that

|μ_{3}| = \frac{1}{16} |ξ_{3} + (- \frac{1}{4}) ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{24}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = - \frac{1}{4} and β = - \frac{1}{24} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, Lemma 1’s assumptions are all satisfied, and, when we apply it, we obtain the below desired outcome:

|μ_{3}| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

ξ_{1} = 1

, then

μ_{1} = \frac{1}{8}

. If

ξ_{2} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

for

k \neq 2

, then

μ_{2} = \frac{1}{8}

. Similarly, if

ξ_{3} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

for

k \neq 3

, then

μ_{3} = \frac{1}{16}

. This indicates that, for the functions provided by (8) with

w (z) = z,

w (z) = z^{2},

w (z) = z^{3}

and

w (z) = z^{4}

, respectively, the equality conditions in the theorem’s statement are true. □

Theorem 7.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

and has the expansion (1), then, for

η \in C

|μ_{2} - η μ_{1}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{8}, |\frac{η + 1}{64}|\} .

The Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp.

Proof.

Using (22) and (23), we easily obtain

\begin{matrix} |μ_{2} - η μ_{1}^{2}| & = & |\frac{1}{8} ξ_{2} - \frac{η}{64} ξ_{1}^{2} - \frac{1}{64} ξ_{1}^{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{8} |ξ_{2} + (\frac{- η - 1}{8}) ξ_{1}^{2}| . \end{matrix}

The application of (5) leads us to

|μ_{2} - η μ_{1}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{8}, |\frac{η + 1}{64}|\} .

The obtained bound of the Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp by considering

w (z) = z^{2}

. □

The below result is obtained by putting

η = 1

in Theorem 7.

Corollary 2.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the expansion representation (1), then

|μ_{2} - μ_{1}^{2}| \leq \frac{1}{8} .

This result is the best possible.

Theorem 8.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the series form (1), then sharp bounds are

|μ_{3} - μ_{1} μ_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{16} a n d |μ_{3} - μ_{1}^{3}| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

Proof.

Using (22)–(24), we achieve

|μ_{3} - μ_{1} μ_{2}| = \frac{1}{16} |ξ_{3} + (- \frac{1}{2}) ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{96}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = - \frac{1}{2} and β = - \frac{1}{96} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. Hence,

|μ_{3} - μ_{1} μ_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

To estimate

μ_{3} - μ_{1}^{3}

, we write this expression as follows:

|μ_{3} - μ_{1}^{3}| = \frac{1}{16} |ξ_{3} + (- \frac{1}{4}) ξ_{1} ξ_{2} + (- \frac{7}{96}) ξ_{1}^{3}| .

From Lemma 1, let

α = - \frac{1}{4} and β = - \frac{7}{96} .

It is clear that

|α| \leq \frac{1}{2} and - 1 \leq β \leq 1 .

Thus, all the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. Hence,

|μ_{3} - μ_{1}^{3}| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

Considering

w (z) = z^{3}

, we can observe that the above two estimates are sharp. □

Theorem 9.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the expansion form (1), then

|H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)| \leq \frac{1}{64} .

The above stated inequality is sharp.

Proof.

The determinant

|H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)|

might be reconsidered as follows:

|H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)| = |μ_{1} μ_{3} - μ_{2}^{2}| .

From (22)–(24), we obtain

\begin{matrix} |H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)| & = & \frac{1}{64} |\frac{7}{192} ξ_{1}^{4} - \frac{1}{2} ξ_{1} ξ_{3} - \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{64} |\frac{1}{2} (ξ_{2}^{2} - ξ_{1} ξ_{3}) + \frac{1}{2} (\frac{7}{96} ξ_{1}^{4} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2})| . \end{matrix}

Since

\begin{matrix} |\frac{7}{96} ξ_{1}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| & \leq & \frac{7}{96} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} (1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2}) + {(1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2})}^{2} . \\ = & \frac{79}{96} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4} + 1 - \frac{7}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} . \end{matrix}

and so the function

\frac{79}{96} t^{4} + 1 - \frac{7}{4} t^{2},

is decreasing in

[0, 1]

. Thus, we conclude that

|\frac{7}{96} ξ_{1}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| \leq 1,

and hence by utilizing Lemma 4 along with the last inequality, we obtain the required stated bound.

Moreover, the determinant

|H_{2, 1} (G_{g} / 2)| = \frac{1}{64}

ξ_{2} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

with

k \neq 2

; that is; considering

w (z) = z^{2}

in (8). □

5. Inverse Coefficient

For each univalent function g defined in

U_{d}

, the well-known Köebe 1/4-theorem guarantees that its inverse

g^{- 1}

exists at least on a disc of radius 1/4 with the following Taylor’s series expansion:

g^{- 1} (w) = w + \sum_{n = 2}^{+ \infty} ζ_{n} w^{n}, (|w| < \frac{1}{4}) .

(26)

By the virtue of

g (g^{- 1} (w)) = w

, we obtain

\begin{matrix} ζ_{2} & = & - d_{2}, \end{matrix}

(27)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{3} & = & - d_{3} + 2 d_{2}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(28)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{4} & = & - d_{4} + 5 d_{2} d_{3} - 5 d_{2}^{3}, \end{matrix}

(29)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{5} & = & - d_{5} + 3 d_{3}^{2} + 14 d_{2}^{4} + 6 d_{2} d_{4} - 21 d_{2}^{2} d_{3} . \end{matrix}

(30)

Many authors studied Hankel determinants for the inverse functions; see [61,62,63,64]. Here, in this portion, we study the sharp estimates of some initial coefficient, Fekete–Szegö functional, and Hankel determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g^{- 1})|

for the inverse functions of the class

S S_{S G}^{*}

Theorem 10.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the series form (1), then

\begin{matrix} |ζ_{2}| & \leq & \frac{1}{4}, \\ |ζ_{3}| & \leq & \frac{1}{4} . \end{matrix}

These bounds are sharp.

Proof.

Applying (12)–(15) in (27)–(30), we obtain

\begin{matrix} ζ_{2} & = & - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}, \end{matrix}

(31)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{3} & = & - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2} + \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(32)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{4} & = & - \frac{13}{192} ξ_{1}^{3} - \frac{1}{8} ξ_{3} + \frac{9}{32} ξ_{1} ξ_{2}, \end{matrix}

(33)

\begin{matrix} ζ_{5} & = & \frac{5}{32} ξ_{2}^{2} - \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + \frac{5}{128} ξ_{1}^{4} - \frac{1}{8} ξ_{4} + \frac{3}{16} ξ_{1} ξ_{3} . \end{matrix}

(34)

Implementing (4) in (31), we achieve

|ζ_{2}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

For the proof of the second inequality, we consider (32) as:

|ζ_{3}| = \frac{1}{4} |ξ_{2} + (- \frac{1}{2}) ξ_{1}^{2}| .

Applying (5), we achieve

|ζ_{3}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

ξ_{1} = 1

, then

ζ_{2} = \frac{1}{4}

. Similarly, if

ξ_{2} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

for

k \neq 2

, then

ζ_{3} = \frac{1}{4}

. This demonstrates that the functions produced by (8) with

w (z) = z

and

w (z) = z^{2}

, respectively, satisfy the equalities in the statement of this theorem. □

Theorem 11.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

has the representation (1), then

|ζ_{3} - η ζ_{2}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{4}, |\frac{η - 2}{16}|\} .

The Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp.

Proof.

Using (31) and (32), we easily obtain

\begin{matrix} |ζ_{3} - η ζ_{2}^{2}| & = & |- \frac{1}{4} ξ_{2} - \frac{η}{16} ξ_{1}^{2} + \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}^{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{4} |ξ_{2} + (\frac{η}{4} - \frac{1}{2}) ξ_{1}^{2}| . \end{matrix}

The application of (5) leads us to

|ζ_{3} - η ζ_{2}^{2}| \leq max \{\frac{1}{4}, |\frac{η - 2}{16}|\} .

Considering that

w (z) = z^{2}

, we can observe that the estimate of the Fekete–Szegö functional is sharp. □

Putting

η = 1

in Theorem 11, we deduce the following corollary.

Corollary 3.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

and has the form (1), then the sharp bound is

|ζ_{3} - ζ_{2}^{2}| \leq \frac{1}{4} .

Theorem 12.

g \in S S_{S G}^{*}

and has the series form (1), then

|H_{2, 2} (g^{- 1})| \leq \frac{1}{16} .

The stated inequality is sharp.

Proof.

The determinant

|H_{2, 2} (g^{- 1})|

might be rearranged as:

|H_{2, 2} (g^{- 1})| = |ζ_{2} ζ_{4} - ζ_{3}^{2}| .

From (31)–(33), we achieve

\begin{matrix} |H_{2, 2} (g^{- 1})| & = & \frac{1}{16} |- \frac{1}{48} ξ_{1}^{4} - \frac{1}{2} ξ_{1} ξ_{3} + \frac{1}{8} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| . \\ = & \frac{1}{16} |\frac{1}{2} (ξ_{2}^{2} - ξ_{1} ξ_{3}) + \frac{1}{2} (- \frac{1}{24} ξ_{1}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2})| . \end{matrix}

Since

\begin{matrix} |\frac{1}{24} ξ_{1}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| & \leq & \frac{1}{24} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} (1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2}) + {(1 - {|ξ_{1}|}^{2})}^{2} . \\ = & \frac{19}{24} {|ξ_{1}|}^{4} + 1 - \frac{7}{4} {|ξ_{1}|}^{2} . \end{matrix}

and, for

t \in [0, 1]

, the below function

\frac{19}{24} t^{4} + 1 - \frac{7}{4} t^{2},

is decreasing, it thus follows that

|\frac{1}{24} ξ_{1}^{4} + \frac{1}{4} ξ_{1}^{2} ξ_{2} + ξ_{2}^{2}| \leq 1 .

We may thus obtain the necessary stated inequality by applying Lemma 4 and the final inequality.

Moreover, the determinant

|H_{2, 1} (g^{- 1})| = \frac{1}{16}

ξ_{2} = 1

and

ξ_{k} = 0

with

k \neq 2

; that is, considering that

w (z) = z^{2}

in (8). □

6. Conclusions

One of the most challenging tasks in geometric function theory is to determine how to acquire the sharp estimates of the functionals consisting of coefficients that appear in the Taylor–Maclaurin series of analytic or univalent functions. One of such coefficient-related problems is to determine the sharp bounds of the Hankel determinants. Our goal in this study was to compute the sharp bounds of the second-order Hankel determinant, Zalcman’s functional, and Fekete–Szegö inequalities for the class of symmetric starlike functions connected with the sigmoid function. Furthermore, we calculated the sharp bounds of second-order Hankel determinants, which consist of the coefficients of logarithmic and inverse functions of the same defined class. This work may be extended to obtain the sharp bounds of third, fourth, and fifth-order Hankel determinants for the same class as well as for some novel classes of analytic functions. The obtained results can also be studied for classes of meromophic functions.

Author Contributions

Researchers M.A. (Muhammad Arif), I.A.-S. and M.A. (Muhammad Abbas) came up with the concept for the current study. R.K.A. and M.I.F. confirmed the data and offered several ideas that significantly improved the current paper. After having read the final drafting, each author added something. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere-appreciation to Supporting Project number (RSPD2023R802) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Aleman, A.; Constantin, A. Harmonic maps and ideal fluid flows. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2012, 204, 479–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bieberbach, L. Über dié koeffizienten derjenigen Potenzreihen, welche eine schlichte Abbildung des Einheitskreises vermitteln. Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Akad. Der Wiss. 1916, 138, 940–955. [Google Scholar]
Jenkins, J.A. On certain coefficients of univalent functions II. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1960, 96, 534–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Garabedian, P.R.; Schiffer, M. A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture for the fourth coefficient. J. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1955, 4, 428–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pederson, R.N.; Schiffer, M. A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture for the fifth coefficient. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1972, 45, 161–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ozawa, M. An elementary proof of the Bieberbach conjecture for the sixth coefficient. Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 1969, 21, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De-Branges, L. A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture. Acta Math. 1985, 154, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brown, J.E.; Tsao, A. On the Zalcman conjecture for starlike and typically real functions. Math. Z. 1986, 191, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, L.; Ponnusamy, S.; Qiao, J. Generalized Zalcman conjecture for convex functions of order α. Acta Math. Hung. 2016, 150, 234–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ma, W.C. The Zalcman conjecture for close-to-convex functions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1988, 104, 741–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Krushkal, S.L. Proof of the Zalcman conjecture for initial coefficients. Georgian Math. J. 2010, 17, 663–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Krushkal, S.L. A short geometric proof of the Zalcman and Bieberbach conjectures. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1408.1948. [Google Scholar]
Ma, W. Generalized Zalcman conjecture for starlike and typically real functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1999, 234, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sakaguchi, K. On a certain univalent mapping. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 1959, 11, 72–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Das, R.N.; Singh, P. On subfamily of Schlicht mapping. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 1977, 8, 864–872. [Google Scholar]
Goel, P.; Kumar, S. Certain class of starlike functions associated with modified sigmoid function. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2019, 43, 957–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sunthrayuth, P.; Aldawish, I.; Arif, M.; Abbas, M.; El-Deeb, S. Estimation of the second-order Hankel determinant of logarithmic coefficients for two subclasses of starlike functions. Symmetry 2022, 14, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pommerenke, C. On the coefficients and Hankel determinants of univalent functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1966, 1, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pommerenke, C. On the Hankel determinants of univalent functions. Mathematika 1967, 14, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dienes, P. The Taylor Series; Dover: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
Cantor, D.G. Power series with integral coefficients. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1963, 69, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Edrei, A. Sur les determinants recurrents et less singularities díune fonction donee por son developpement de Taylor. Compos. Math. 1940, 7, 20–88. [Google Scholar]
Hayman, W.K. On second Hankel determinant of mean univalent functions. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 1968, 3, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Obradović, M.; Tuneski, N. Hankel determinants of second and third order for the class S of univalent functions. Math. Slovaca 2021, 71, 649–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Janteng, A.; Halim, S.A.; Darus, M. Hankel determinant for starlike and convex functions. Int. J. Math. 2007, 1, 619–625. [Google Scholar]
Altınkaya, Ş.; Yalçın, S. Upper bound of second Hankel determinant for bi-Bazilevic functions. Mediterr. J. Math. 2016, 13, 4081–4090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bansal, D. Upper bound of second Hankel determinant for a new class of analytic functions. Appl. Math. Lett. 2013, 26, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Çaglar, M.; Deniz, E.; Srivastava, H.M. Second Hankel determinant for certain subclasses of bi-univalent functions. Turk. J. Math. 2017, 41, 694–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kanas, S.; Adegani, E.A.; Zireh, A. An unified approach to second Hankel determinant of bi-subordinate functions. Mediterr. J. Math. 2017, 14, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Shbeil, I.; Shaba, T.G.; Cătaş, A. Second Hankel determinant for the subclass of bi-univalent functions using q-Chebyshev polynomial and Hohlov operator. Fractals Fract. 2022, 6, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Shbeil, I.; Gong, J.; Khan, S.; Khan, N.; Khan, A.; Khan, M.F.; Goswami, A. Hankel and symmetric Toeplitz determinants for a new subclass of q-starlike functions. Fractals Fract. 2022, 6, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Shbeil, I.; Gong, J.; Shaba, T.G. Coefficients inequalities for the bi-nnivalent functions related to q-Babalola convolution operator. Fractal Fract. 2023, 7, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Shbeil, I.; Cătaş, A.; Srivastava, H.M.; Aloraini, N. Coefficient estimates of new families of analytic functions associated with q-Hermite polynomials. Axioms 2023, 14, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Saliu, A.; Al-Shbeil, I.; Gong, J.; Malik, S.N.; Aloraini, N. Properties of q-symmetric starlike functions of Janowski type. Symmetry 2022, 14, 1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Saliu, A.; Jabeen, K.; Al-shbeil, I.; Oladejo, S.O.; Cătaş, A. Radius and differential subordination results for starlikeness associated with Limaçon class. J. Funct. Spaces 2022, 2022, 8264693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Banga, S.; Sivaprasad Kumar, S. The sharp bounds of the second and third Hankel determinants for the class $S L$ . Math. Slovaca 2020, 70, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ebadian, A.; Bulboacă, T.; Cho, N.E.; Adegani, E.A. Coefficient bounds and differential subordinations for analytic functions associated with starlike functions. Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. Ser. Mat. 2020, 114, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lee, S.K.; Ravichandran, V.; Supramaniam, S. Bounds for the second Hankel determinant of certain univalent functions. J. Inequalities Appl. 2013, 281, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sim, Y.J.; Thomas, D.K.; Zaprawa, P. The second Hankel determinant for starlike and convex functions of order alpha. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 2020, 67, 2423–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Răducanu, D.; Zaprawa, P. Second Hankel determinant for close-to-convex functions. Comptes Rendus Math. 2017, 355, 1063–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Z.-G.; Arif, M.; Liu, Z.H.; Zainab, S.; Fayyaz, R.; Ihsan, M.; Shutaywi, M. Sharp bounds of Hankel determinants for certain subclass of starlike functions. J. Appl. Anal. Comput. 2023, 13, 860–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ullah, K.; Al-Shbeil, I.; Faisal, M.I.; Arif, M.; Alsaud, H. Results on second-Order Hankel determinants for convex functions with symmetric points. Symmetry 2023, 15, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Al-Shbeil, I.; Wanas, A.K.; Saliu, A.; Cătaş, A. Applications of beta negative Binomial distribution and Laguerre polynomials on Ozaki bi-close-to-convex functions. Axioms 2022, 11, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Prokhorov, D.V.; Szynal, J. Inverse coefficients for (α,β) -convex functions. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-SkłOdowska Sect. A 1981, 35, 125–143. [Google Scholar]
Zaprawa, P.; Obradović, M.; Tuneski, N. Third Hankel determinant for univalent starlike functions. Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Físicas Nat. Ser. A MatemáTicas 2021, 115, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carlson, F. Sur les Coefficients D’une Fonction Bornée Dans Le Cercle Unité; Almqvist Wiksell: Stockholm, Sweden, 1940. [Google Scholar]
Zaprawa, P. On coefficient problems for functions starlike with respect to symmetric points. BoletíN Soc. Matemática Mex. 2022, 28, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Avkhadiev, F.G.; Wirths, K.J. Schwarz-Pick Type Inequalities; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
FitzGerald, C.H.; Pommerenke, C. The de-Branges theorem on univalent functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1985, 290, 683–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
FitzGerald, C.H.; Pommerenke, C. A theorem of de-Branges on univalent functions. Serdica 1987, 13, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kayumov, I.P. On Brennan’s conjecture for a special class of functions. Math. Notes 2005, 78, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alimohammadi, D.; Analouei Adegani, E.; Bulboaca, T.; Cho, N.E. Logarithmic coefficient bounds and coefficient conjectures for classes associated with convex functions. J. Funct. Spaces 2021, 2021, 6690027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deng, Q. On the logarithmic coefficients of Bazilevic functions. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 217, 5889–5894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Roth, O. A sharp inequality for the logarithmic coefficients of univalent functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2007, 135, 2051–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kowalczyk, B.; Lecko, A. Second Hankel determinant of logarithmic coefficients of convex and starlike functions. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2022, 105, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kowalczyk, B.; Lecko, A. Second Hankel Determinant of logarithmic coefficients of convex and starlike functions of order alpha. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2022, 45, 727–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sümer Eker, S.; Şeker, B.; Çekiç, B.; Acu, M. Sharp bounds for the second Hankel determinant of logarithmic coefficients for strongly starlike and strongly convex functions. Axioms 2022, 11, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sunthrayuth, P.; Iqbal, N.; Naeem, M.; Jawarneh, Y.; Samura, S.K. The sharp upper bounds of the Hankel determinant on logarithmic coefficients for certain analytic functions Connected with Eight-Shaped Domains. J. Funct. Spaces 2022, 2022, 2229960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shi, L.; Arif, M.; Iqbal, J.; Ullah, K.; Ghufran, S.M. Sharp bounds of Hankel determinant on logarithmic coefficients for functions starlike with exponential function. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Analouei Adegani, E.; Bulboacă, T.; Hameed Mohammed, N.; Zaprawa, P. Solution of logarithmic coefficients conjectures for some classes of convex functions. Math. Slovaca 2023, 73, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Krzyz, J.G.; Libera, R.J.; Zlotkiewicz, E. Coefficients of inverse of regular starlike functions. Ann. Univ. Mariae. Curie-Skłodowska 1979, 33, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
Ali, R.M. Coefficients of the inverse of strongly starlike functions. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 2003, 26, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
Shi, L.; Arif, M.; Abbas, M.; Ihsan, M. Sharp bounds of Hankel determinant for the inverse functions on a subclass of bounded turning functions. Mediterr. J. Math. 2023, 20, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shi, L.; Srivastava, H.M.; Rafiq, A.; Arif, M.; Ihsan, M. Results on Hankel determinants for the inverse of certain analytic functions subordinated to the exponential function. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Faisal, M.I.; Al-Shbeil, I.; Abbas, M.; Arif, M.; Alhefthi, R.K. Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function. Symmetry 2023, 15, 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071292

AMA Style

Faisal MI, Al-Shbeil I, Abbas M, Arif M, Alhefthi RK. Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function. Symmetry. 2023; 15(7):1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Faisal, Muhammad Imran, Isra Al-Shbeil, Muhammad Abbas, Muhammad Arif, and Reem K. Alhefthi. 2023. "Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function" Symmetry 15, no. 7: 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071292

APA Style

Faisal, M. I., Al-Shbeil, I., Abbas, M., Arif, M., & Alhefthi, R. K. (2023). Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function. Symmetry, 15(7), 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Problems Concerning Coefficients of Symmetric Starlike Functions Connected with the Sigmoid Function

Abstract

1. Introduction and Definitions

2. A Set of Lemmas

3. Coefficient Bounds

4. Logarithmic Coefficient

5. Inverse Coefficient

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI